Search Inquiry Documents

The Wairarapa ki Tararua report was released on Saturday 26 June 2010 at Te Ore Ore Marae, Masterton.[1] The three-volume report covers 17 claims filed by members of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne hapū and other claimant groups.

The Tribunal panel consisted of Judge Carrie Wainwright (presiding), Professor Wharehuia Milroy, Dr Ranganui Walker, and Dame Margaret Bazley, and nine weeks of hearings were held between March 2004 and March 2005. The inquiry district, a covered the south-eastern corner of the North Island inland to the Ruahine and Tararua Ranges and northward the southern Hawke’s Bay.

In its report, the Tribunal found that Crown acts and omissions in this district constituted serious breaches of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In the nineteenth century the Crown purchased too much Māori land too quickly and without regard to the inevitable plight of a Māori population left virtually landless in a part of the country where agricultural enterprise was the principal route to a good livelihood.

The Tribunal urged that Māori rights in and around Wairarapa Moana be recognised and given effect. In its view, the important and little-known history of Wairarapa Moana and Pouākani is a story in which all the credit for honour, reasonableness and restraint goes to the Māori actors, and little to either the representatives of the settler government of that time or indeed to the Wairarapa farmers who so resented Māori controlling the opening of the wetland to the sea.

The Tribunal considered that there is not enough muscle in the legislation governing the relationship between tangata whenua and local authorities, DOC, agencies involved in Māori heritage management, and the Ministry of Fisheries to enable Māori in the district to make their views count to an extent that is at all appropriate in Treaty terms. As a result, it is difficult for the district’s Māori population to exercise any meaningful influence over what goes on in their own locality.

The Tribunal was concerned that many important Māori heritage sites in the region are vulnerable. Some of the archaeological sites, especially in the south, are internationally significant, and it considered that the current regime for their recognition and protection is inadequate.

The Tribunal noted that it has not observed any Government response to its recommendations, first released in July 2009, for changes to the public works regime removing the legislative power to acquire Māori land compulsorily for public works.  It expressed the hope that this area of policy will soon get the attention it has so long been denied.

The Tribunal considered that Māori of this region have been sorely tested over a long period. Their small population and early colonisation left them struggling to assert their mana and identity in the face of a Pākehā majority that soon owned most of the land, made all of the decisions, and did not value Māori culture or language.

The Tribunal was concerned that te reo Māori has reached a very low ebb in this area. Māori language tuition is not easily accessible to most and is not even available to all Māori children, especially after early childhood. Improved access and more resources are necessary if the Crown is to make amends for the wrongs of the past.

The Tribunal recorded its strong impression of an improvement in the historically difficult relationship between the two tribes of this region, Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, during the course of the inquiry. It expresses the hope that this will set the scene for a successful negotiated resolution of the Treaty breaches documented in its report.

This was to assist claimants and the Crown in negotiations concerning the return of the former Ōkautete School buildings situated near Homewood in the eastern Wairarapa. The Tribunal recommended that, having properly given back the Ōkautete School site to the local Māori community, the Crown should also give them the school buildings and schoolhouse located on the site. The advanced release also highlighted the panel’s broader finding that public works legislation should be changed to forbid the compulsory acquisition of Māori land in all but the most extreme situations. The Tribunal encouraged the Government to heed this finding in its review of aspects of public works procedures and legislation.

[1] Chapter 8, on public works takings, had previously been released in pre-publication format in July 2009.

The Wairarapa ki Tararua report was released on Saturday 26 June 2010 at Te Ore Ore Marae, Masterton.[1] The three-volume report covers 17 claims filed by members of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne hapū and other claimant groups.

The Tribunal panel consisted of Judge Carrie Wainwright (presiding), Professor Wharehuia Milroy, Dr Ranganui Walker, and Dame Margaret Bazley, and nine weeks of hearings were held between March 2004 and March 2005. The inquiry district, a covered the south-eastern corner of the North Island inland to the Ruahine and Tararua Ranges and northward the southern Hawke’s Bay.

In its report, the Tribunal found that Crown acts and omissions in this district constituted serious breaches of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In the nineteenth century the Crown purchased too much Māori land too quickly and without regard to the inevitable plight of a Māori population left virtually landless in a part of the country where agricultural enterprise was the principal route to a good livelihood.

The Tribunal urged that Māori rights in and around Wairarapa Moana be recognised and given effect. In its view, the important and little-known history of Wairarapa Moana and Pouākani is a story in which all the credit for honour, reasonableness and restraint goes to the Māori actors, and little to either the representatives of the settler government of that time or indeed to the Wairarapa farmers who so resented Māori controlling the opening of the wetland to the sea.

The Tribunal considered that there is not enough muscle in the legislation governing the relationship between tangata whenua and local authorities, DOC, agencies involved in Māori heritage management, and the Ministry of Fisheries to enable Māori in the district to make their views count to an extent that is at all appropriate in Treaty terms. As a result, it is difficult for the district’s Māori population to exercise any meaningful influence over what goes on in their own locality.

The Tribunal was concerned that many important Māori heritage sites in the region are vulnerable. Some of the archaeological sites, especially in the south, are internationally significant, and it considered that the current regime for their recognition and protection is inadequate.

The Tribunal noted that it has not observed any Government response to its recommendations, first released in July 2009, for changes to the public works regime removing the legislative power to acquire Māori land compulsorily for public works.  It expressed the hope that this area of policy will soon get the attention it has so long been denied.

The Tribunal considered that Māori of this region have been sorely tested over a long period. Their small population and early colonisation left them struggling to assert their mana and identity in the face of a Pākehā majority that soon owned most of the land, made all of the decisions, and did not value Māori culture or language.

The Tribunal was concerned that te reo Māori has reached a very low ebb in this area. Māori language tuition is not easily accessible to most and is not even available to all Māori children, especially after early childhood. Improved access and more resources are necessary if the Crown is to make amends for the wrongs of the past.

The Tribunal recorded its strong impression of an improvement in the historically difficult relationship between the two tribes of this region, Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, during the course of the inquiry. It expresses the hope that this will set the scene for a successful negotiated resolution of the Treaty breaches documented in its report.

This was to assist claimants and the Crown in negotiations concerning the return of the former Ōkautete School buildings situated near Homewood in the eastern Wairarapa. The Tribunal recommended that, having properly given back the Ōkautete School site to the local Māori community, the Crown should also give them the school buildings and schoolhouse located on the site. The advanced release also highlighted the panel’s broader finding that public works legislation should be changed to forbid the compulsory acquisition of Māori land in all but the most extreme situations. The Tribunal encouraged the Government to heed this finding in its review of aspects of public works procedures and legislation.

[1] Chapter 8, on public works takings, had previously been released in pre-publication format in July 2009.

The East Coast Settlement Report is the outcome of an urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing held in Wellington between 14 and 16 December 2009 into the Crown’s recognition of Te Runanga o Ngāti Porou’s (TRONP) mandate to negotiate and settle all historical Ngāti Porou Treaty of Waitangi claims. The Tribunal panel comprised Judge Craig Coxhead (presiding), the Honourable Sir Douglas Kidd, Kihi Ngatai, Tania Simpson, and Basil Morrison.

The three main claimants in the inquiry asserted they represented Ruawaipu, Uepohatu, and Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti. All submitted that they, and those they claimed to represent, were not Ngāti Porou, and TRONP therefore had no valid mandate to represent them in settlement negotiations. The claimants argued that the Crown’s mandating process was flawed and sought a recommendation that the Crown delay the Ngāti Porou settlement negotiations until their historical claims had been inquired into by the Waitangi Tribunal.

TRONP, as a secondary party to these proceedings, argued that those identifying as Ruawaipu, Uepohatu, and Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti were Ngāti Porou. The Crown submitted that TRONP had a valid mandate to negotiate all Ngati Porou historical claims within the East Coast inquiry district. The Tribunal did not inquire into matters of tribal identity but instead focused on the actions of the Crown in recognising TRONP’s mandate.

Having assessed the evidence and arguments of all parties, the Tribunal did not recommend that the Crown delay settlement with TRONP as requested by the claimants. The Tribunal concluded that the potential prejudice of delaying such a significant settlement would outweigh any possible prejudice to the claimants from having their claims settled without their specific consent. The Tribunal was also not convinced that the claimants commanded significant support compared with the support demonstrated by TRONP. The Tribunal was mindful of the fact that both the Crown and TRONP had suggested ways in which at least some of the claimants’ concerns might be addressed.

However, the Tribunal also noted flaws in the process followed by the Crown in recognising TRONP’s mandate. While the Tribunal did not consider that these flaws were so serious as to warrant recommending delaying settlement, it was concerned that they should not be repeated when the Crown seeks to negotiate and settle Treaty claims with other groups. The Tribunal therefore recommended a number of changes to the Crown’s mandate policies to enhance the durability of future settlements. The Tribunal urged the Crown to adopt these recommended changes and to ensure they are reflected in official documents outlining Crown settlement policy. These recommended changes included the following:

• OTS should call for submissions at the point that a proposed mandating strategy is submitted, as well as after a deed of mandate is received. This will allow claimants who have a vested interest in a settlement ample time to comment upon, oppose, or make recommendations on the strategy, as well as to inform the Crown of interested parties and allow it the opportunity to engage with them at an early stage in the process.
• The information provided as part of any mandating strategy must include:
  • the specific claims (Wai numbers) to be included in a proposed settlement;
  • a clear definition of the claimant community on an iwi, hapu, marae, and whakapapa basis; and
  • the specific geographical area to be covered by a proposed settlement.
• OTS should, at an early stage, write to all Wai number claimants whose claims might be extinguished if a proposed settlement goes ahead, informing them of this fact. The earlier in the process claimants know what is being proposed, the earlier they can support or oppose negotiations. Furthermore, the Crown could insist that the negotiating committee formed after the mandating process inform all those affected by the proposed settlement on a regular basis when milestones are reached in its negotiations with Crown officials.
• The Crown should adopt a more proactive role in monitoring developments during the mandating strategy process. While we understand and acknowledge the Crown’s reluctance to intervene in disputes over which claims are to be included in a mandating strategy, it also has a responsibility towards claimants who may feel marginalised as a result of the process.
• The Crown has a responsibility to ensure that all interested parties in a negotiated settlement have access to unhindered participation at every stage of the mandating process. This will lessen the likelihood of claimants seeking recourse to urgency proceedings with the Tribunal and ensure that settlements are conducted in a fair and open manner.
• OTS should update its policy guide, ‘Ka Tika a Muri, Ka Tika a Mua’, to reflect changes that have arisen out of the recommendations of the ‘Te Arawa Settlement Process Reports’ and the ‘Tamaki Makaurau Report’, as well as the recommendations of the present inquiry.

This short report concerns a claim about the inclusion of Ngā Wairiki in the proposed Ngāti Apa Treaty settlement.

On 22 November 2008, the Waitangi Tribunal released its final report on the Treaty claims of iwi and hapu of Te Tau Ihu (northern South Island). The eight recognised iwi are Ngati Apa, Ngati Koata, Ngati Kuia, Ngati Rarua, Ngati Tama, Ngati Toa Rangatira, Te Atiawa, and Rangitane. The report had earlier been released as an incomplete pre-publication edition in order to help with the claimants in their settlement negotiations with the Crown.

The Tribunal inquiry panel comprised Maori land Court Deputy Chief Judge Wilson Isaac (presiding officer), Professor Keith Sorrenson, Pam Ringwood, and John Clarke. The late Rangitihi Tahuparae, a respected kaumatua of Whanganui, passed away on 2 October 2008 between the completion of the report and its publication.

In its report, the Tribunal found that many acts and omissions of the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In particular, the Tribunal concluded that ownership of all but a tiny fraction of land in the Te Tau Ihu district was lost to Maori without first gaining their free, informed, and meaningful consent to the alienations. Nor did the Crown ensure that fair prices were paid and sufficient lands retained by the iwi for their own requirements.

The Tribunal finds that, contrary to Treaty principles, the Crown granted lands at Nelson and Golden Bay to the New Zealand Company without first ensuring that all customary owners were fairly dealt with. It then proceeded with its own large-scale Wairau and Waipounamu purchases, making predetermined decisions as to ownership which ignored the rights of many Te Tau Ihu Maori or left them with little meaningful choice over the alienation of their lands.

As a result, by as early as 1860 Te Tau Ihu Maori had lost most of their original estate. Thereafter, the Crown failed to actively protect their interests in those lands which remained to them. It also failed to protect their just rights and interests in valued natural resources. Despite petitions from Maori and repeated reports from its own officials, the Crown failed to protect or provide for Maori interests and rights in their customary fisheries and other resources. The result of these failures was grinding poverty, social dislocation, and loss of culture.

The Tribunal found that the totality of Treaty breaches were serious and caused significant social, economic, cultural, and spiritual prejudice to all iwi of Te Tau Ihu. These breaches, the Tribunal considered, required large and culturally appropriate redress.

In an attempt to assist Te Tau Ihu Treaty settlements, the Tribunal made several recommendations for remedies. Having regard in particular to the relatively even spread in terms of social and economic prejudice across all eight Te Tau Ihu iwi, the Tribunal recommended that the total quantum of financial and commercial redress be divided equally between them.

The Tribunal also recommended that site-specific cultural redress should be discussed collectively with all groups involved in Te Tau Ihu Treaty negotiations and that the unique claim of Ngati Apa, whose customary interests within Te Tau Ihu were never extinguished by any kind of deed of cession, needed special recognition. The Tribunal found the Crown’s repeated failure to properly recognise and deal with the Kurahaupo iwi as the legitimate tangata whenua (alongside the northern tribes) of Te Tau Ihu to be a serious breach. It recommended that the Crown take steps to fully recognise and restore the mana of the Kurahaupo iwi.

The Tribunal recommended that the settlement of historical grievances relating to Wakatu Incorporation was most appropriately a matter to be concluded between the Crown and Te Tau Ihu iwi and that matters affecting the shareholders of Wakatu Incorporation since its establishment in 1977 should be resolved between the incorporation and the Crown. It recommended that the Crown enter into parallel negotiations with the Ngati Rarua Atiawa Iwi Trust, with a view to bringing the Whakarewa (Motueka) leases into line with the 1997 Maori reserved lands settlement.

The Tribunal’s report highlighted a number of shortcomings with respect to the current ‘offer-back’ regime under the Public Works Act 1981. It recommended amendments to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the Public Works Act to address these issues.

The Tribunal also highlighted problems with resource and fishery management regimes and recommended changes and improvements to ensure that these regimes were more consistent with the Treaty. The Crown admitted that the Resource Management Act 1991 was not being implemented in a manner that provided fairly for Maori interests.

Finally, the Tribunal made recommendations with respect to the customary interests of Te Tau Ihu iwi within the statutorily defined Ngai Tahu takiwa. Te Tau Ihu iwi lost the ability to recover their interests in lands within the takiwa, which have been vested in Ngai Tahu as a result of earlier Crown settlement. The Tribunal strongly recommended that the Crown take urgent action to ensure that these breaches did not continue. It also recommended that the Crown negotiate with those Te Tau Ihu iwi identified in the report as having customary interests within the statutorily defined Ngai Tahu takiwa to agree on equitable compensation.

On 22 November 2008, the Waitangi Tribunal released its final report on the Treaty claims of iwi and hapu of Te Tau Ihu (northern South Island). The eight recognised iwi are Ngati Apa, Ngati Koata, Ngati Kuia, Ngati Rarua, Ngati Tama, Ngati Toa Rangatira, Te Atiawa, and Rangitane. The report had earlier been released as an incomplete pre-publication edition in order to help with the claimants in their settlement negotiations with the Crown.

The Tribunal inquiry panel comprised Maori land Court Deputy Chief Judge Wilson Isaac (presiding officer), Professor Keith Sorrenson, Pam Ringwood, and John Clarke. The late Rangitihi Tahuparae, a respected kaumatua of Whanganui, passed away on 2 October 2008 between the completion of the report and its publication.

In its report, the Tribunal found that many acts and omissions of the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In particular, the Tribunal concluded that ownership of all but a tiny fraction of land in the Te Tau Ihu district was lost to Maori without first gaining their free, informed, and meaningful consent to the alienations. Nor did the Crown ensure that fair prices were paid and sufficient lands retained by the iwi for their own requirements.

The Tribunal finds that, contrary to Treaty principles, the Crown granted lands at Nelson and Golden Bay to the New Zealand Company without first ensuring that all customary owners were fairly dealt with. It then proceeded with its own large-scale Wairau and Waipounamu purchases, making predetermined decisions as to ownership which ignored the rights of many Te Tau Ihu Maori or left them with little meaningful choice over the alienation of their lands.

As a result, by as early as 1860 Te Tau Ihu Maori had lost most of their original estate. Thereafter, the Crown failed to actively protect their interests in those lands which remained to them. It also failed to protect their just rights and interests in valued natural resources. Despite petitions from Maori and repeated reports from its own officials, the Crown failed to protect or provide for Maori interests and rights in their customary fisheries and other resources. The result of these failures was grinding poverty, social dislocation, and loss of culture.

The Tribunal found that the totality of Treaty breaches were serious and caused significant social, economic, cultural, and spiritual prejudice to all iwi of Te Tau Ihu. These breaches, the Tribunal considered, required large and culturally appropriate redress.

In an attempt to assist Te Tau Ihu Treaty settlements, the Tribunal made several recommendations for remedies. Having regard in particular to the relatively even spread in terms of social and economic prejudice across all eight Te Tau Ihu iwi, the Tribunal recommended that the total quantum of financial and commercial redress be divided equally between them.

The Tribunal also recommended that site-specific cultural redress should be discussed collectively with all groups involved in Te Tau Ihu Treaty negotiations and that the unique claim of Ngati Apa, whose customary interests within Te Tau Ihu were never extinguished by any kind of deed of cession, needed special recognition. The Tribunal found the Crown’s repeated failure to properly recognise and deal with the Kurahaupo iwi as the legitimate tangata whenua (alongside the northern tribes) of Te Tau Ihu to be a serious breach. It recommended that the Crown take steps to fully recognise and restore the mana of the Kurahaupo iwi.

The Tribunal recommended that the settlement of historical grievances relating to Wakatu Incorporation was most appropriately a matter to be concluded between the Crown and Te Tau Ihu iwi and that matters affecting the shareholders of Wakatu Incorporation since its establishment in 1977 should be resolved between the incorporation and the Crown. It recommended that the Crown enter into parallel negotiations with the Ngati Rarua Atiawa Iwi Trust, with a view to bringing the Whakarewa (Motueka) leases into line with the 1997 Maori reserved lands settlement.

The Tribunal’s report highlighted a number of shortcomings with respect to the current ‘offer-back’ regime under the Public Works Act 1981. It recommended amendments to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the Public Works Act to address these issues.

The Tribunal also highlighted problems with resource and fishery management regimes and recommended changes and improvements to ensure that these regimes were more consistent with the Treaty. The Crown admitted that the Resource Management Act 1991 was not being implemented in a manner that provided fairly for Maori interests.

Finally, the Tribunal made recommendations with respect to the customary interests of Te Tau Ihu iwi within the statutorily defined Ngai Tahu takiwa. Te Tau Ihu iwi lost the ability to recover their interests in lands within the takiwa, which have been vested in Ngai Tahu as a result of earlier Crown settlement. The Tribunal strongly recommended that the Crown take urgent action to ensure that these breaches did not continue. It also recommended that the Crown negotiate with those Te Tau Ihu iwi identified in the report as having customary interests within the statutorily defined Ngai Tahu takiwa to agree on equitable compensation.

On 22 November 2008, the Waitangi Tribunal released its final report on the Treaty claims of iwi and hapu of Te Tau Ihu (northern South Island). The eight recognised iwi are Ngati Apa, Ngati Koata, Ngati Kuia, Ngati Rarua, Ngati Tama, Ngati Toa Rangatira, Te Atiawa, and Rangitane. The report had earlier been released as an incomplete pre-publication edition in order to help with the claimants in their settlement negotiations with the Crown.

The Tribunal inquiry panel comprised Maori land Court Deputy Chief Judge Wilson Isaac (presiding officer), Professor Keith Sorrenson, Pam Ringwood, and John Clarke. The late Rangitihi Tahuparae, a respected kaumatua of Whanganui, passed away on 2 October 2008 between the completion of the report and its publication.

In its report, the Tribunal found that many acts and omissions of the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In particular, the Tribunal concluded that ownership of all but a tiny fraction of land in the Te Tau Ihu district was lost to Maori without first gaining their free, informed, and meaningful consent to the alienations. Nor did the Crown ensure that fair prices were paid and sufficient lands retained by the iwi for their own requirements.

The Tribunal finds that, contrary to Treaty principles, the Crown granted lands at Nelson and Golden Bay to the New Zealand Company without first ensuring that all customary owners were fairly dealt with. It then proceeded with its own large-scale Wairau and Waipounamu purchases, making predetermined decisions as to ownership which ignored the rights of many Te Tau Ihu Maori or left them with little meaningful choice over the alienation of their lands.

As a result, by as early as 1860 Te Tau Ihu Maori had lost most of their original estate. Thereafter, the Crown failed to actively protect their interests in those lands which remained to them. It also failed to protect their just rights and interests in valued natural resources. Despite petitions from Maori and repeated reports from its own officials, the Crown failed to protect or provide for Maori interests and rights in their customary fisheries and other resources. The result of these failures was grinding poverty, social dislocation, and loss of culture.

The Tribunal found that the totality of Treaty breaches were serious and caused significant social, economic, cultural, and spiritual prejudice to all iwi of Te Tau Ihu. These breaches, the Tribunal considered, required large and culturally appropriate redress.

In an attempt to assist Te Tau Ihu Treaty settlements, the Tribunal made several recommendations for remedies. Having regard in particular to the relatively even spread in terms of social and economic prejudice across all eight Te Tau Ihu iwi, the Tribunal recommended that the total quantum of financial and commercial redress be divided equally between them.

The Tribunal also recommended that site-specific cultural redress should be discussed collectively with all groups involved in Te Tau Ihu Treaty negotiations and that the unique claim of Ngati Apa, whose customary interests within Te Tau Ihu were never extinguished by any kind of deed of cession, needed special recognition. The Tribunal found the Crown’s repeated failure to properly recognise and deal with the Kurahaupo iwi as the legitimate tangata whenua (alongside the northern tribes) of Te Tau Ihu to be a serious breach. It recommended that the Crown take steps to fully recognise and restore the mana of the Kurahaupo iwi.

The Tribunal recommended that the settlement of historical grievances relating to Wakatu Incorporation was most appropriately a matter to be concluded between the Crown and Te Tau Ihu iwi and that matters affecting the shareholders of Wakatu Incorporation since its establishment in 1977 should be resolved between the incorporation and the Crown. It recommended that the Crown enter into parallel negotiations with the Ngati Rarua Atiawa Iwi Trust, with a view to bringing the Whakarewa (Motueka) leases into line with the 1997 Maori reserved lands settlement.

The Tribunal’s report highlighted a number of shortcomings with respect to the current ‘offer-back’ regime under the Public Works Act 1981. It recommended amendments to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the Public Works Act to address these issues.

The Tribunal also highlighted problems with resource and fishery management regimes and recommended changes and improvements to ensure that these regimes were more consistent with the Treaty. The Crown admitted that the Resource Management Act 1991 was not being implemented in a manner that provided fairly for Maori interests.

Finally, the Tribunal made recommendations with respect to the customary interests of Te Tau Ihu iwi within the statutorily defined Ngai Tahu takiwa. Te Tau Ihu iwi lost the ability to recover their interests in lands within the takiwa, which have been vested in Ngai Tahu as a result of earlier Crown settlement. The Tribunal strongly recommended that the Crown take urgent action to ensure that these breaches did not continue. It also recommended that the Crown negotiate with those Te Tau Ihu iwi identified in the report as having customary interests within the statutorily defined Ngai Tahu takiwa to agree on equitable compensation.

He Maunga Rongo: The Report on Central North Island Claims, Stage 1 addresses over 120 Treaty claims raised by Māori from some 50 iwi and hapū living in a region that stretches from the Bay of Plenty coastline inland to just south of Lake Taupo and eastwards across the Kaingaroa Plains.

The claims were brought together in the largest inquiry that the Tribunal has ever held. In hearings held over 10 weeks between 1 February and 9 November 2005, some 300 witnesses provided evidential briefs – including over 270 from Māori themselves – and the Tribunal considered over 100 written research reports.

The Tribunal panel consisted of Judge Caren Fox (presiding), John Baird, Gloria Herbert, and Dr Ann Parsonson. However, Mr Baird, as a director of Mighty River Power, was excluded from discussions, report writing, and any findings and recommendations concerning rivers, waters, lakes (including Lake Taupo), geothermal resources or assets, and any other part of the CNI inquiry in which Mighty River Power may have an interest.

A two-stage approach was adopted for the inquiry, with stage 1 focusing on generic or big picture issues which concern iwi and hapū across the region. (Stage 2, if needed, will look into the details of specific claims.) Stage 1 was divided into modules, to enable claimants to ‘opt out’ at certain points and switch to an early direct negotiation track if they wished. Some did so, taking advantage of the research that had been completed during the first module. The majority, however, stayed with the Tribunal process through to the end of hearings and then requested that the Tribunal continue to the next module and produce a report. This report comprises some 2000 pages and is broken into six parts.

Part I explains the inquiry process and introduces the iwi and hapu of the central North Island (CNI) inquiry region. It describes their traditions about their origins and the complexity of their kin interrelationships. It discusses traditional knowledge and customary law, explaining how the latter was based on values rather than rules.

Part II considers the political relationship between CNI Māori and the Crown from the time of the Treaty to around 1920. In the Tribunal’s finding, the Treaty guaranteed and protected the full authority (tino rangatiratanga) of Māori over their lands, people, treasures, and affairs – such authority being inherent to Māori polities, not created by the Treaty. The Tribunal also found that indigenous ‘sovereignty’ was not about independence from the state but rather about the proper exercise of Crown and Māori autonomy in their respective spheres and about managing the overlaps in partnership.

The Tribunal concluded that Crown’s guarantee to Māori of the same rights as other British subjects included the right to self-government through representative institutions. The report considers a number of ways in which the Crown could have met its obligations in this respect, but failed to do so. Indeed, the Tribunal concluded that given the sheer breadth and number of lost opportunities between 1840 and 1920 – many not so much being lost as sidelined or actively rejected – the historical evidence was overwhelmingly that the Crown committed a sustained breach of the Treaty in this regard.

Part III looks at the administration and alienation of Maori land in the region, and the lasting difficulties faced by Māori owners as a result of the title system introduced by the Crown. It discusses how, with the transformation of customary rights into individualised shares in newly created land blocks, many owners came to hold interests scattered between different places. Then, as the Māori land base shrank, and the land court rule of equal succession to owners’ interests took effect, inherited shares became smaller and smaller. Other chapters in this part discuss Crown provisions for the purchase and lease of land, and the way these were implemented in the Taupo, Kaingaroa, and Rotorua districts in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In the Tribunal’s finding, the key Treaty breach in respect of all these issues was the Crown’s failure, over more than a century, to facilitate legal community titles to land, which would have enabled hapu to make community decisions about land management, development, sale and lease. The Tribunal did find, however, that the breach has been mitigated by the provisions of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 – legislation which has given Māori landowners a greater range of options.

Lastly in this section of the report, the Tribunal looks at public works issues. Here, on the evidence available to it, the Tribunal concluded that Māori land was often not taken as a last resort, and/or only in exceptional circumstances in the national interest. Rather, because of the lesser requirements for notification, consultation and opportunities to object, Māori land (when wanted for a public work) tended to be taken as a first or early resort. This was in breach of the Treaty.

Part IV considers economic development. The Tribunal found that Māori possessed a Treaty right to development. This right extended to the development of their property, including through the use of new technologies and/or for new purposes, and to having an equal opportunity to do so. It also included the ability to develop, or profit from, resources in which they have a proprietary interest under Māori custom, even where the nature of that property right was not necessarily recognised under British law.

Ensuing chapters in part IV look at economic development in the areas of farming, tourism, forestry (both indigenous and exotic) and power generation. In many of these areas, the Tribunal found that the Crown had failed in its duty of active protection of Maori interests. As a result, it concluded, CNI Māori were often marginalised from economic development, especially up until the mid-twentieth century. The Tribunal did consider that the Crown may have done somewhat better in its Treaty obligations over Māori economic development in the exotic forestry sector, and did not find Treaty breach in that instance – although noted that its finding was preliminary as the evidence had not gone into detail. It also noted that CNI Māori economic development in that sector had come at a high price in terms of their cultural, environmental, and social interests.

Part V assesses Crown policies for natural resources and the environment. It looks at how CNI Māori have conceptualised, claimed and utilised the resources of the region, and concludes that two world views and two systems of law and authority have clashed. That discussion is carried through into chapters that focus on Lake Taupo; on other water resources of the region such as springs, smaller lakes, rivers, and estuaries; and on the geothermal resource.

The Tribunal found that Māori customary rights to indigenous freshwater and sea fisheries remained legally enforceable so long as there was compliance with the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. It also found that in legal and Treaty terms, CNI Māori had retained their customary rights to the geothermal fields of the cntral North Island and to the underlying the Taupo volcanic zone.

In general, the Tribunal found that the Crown had breached the Treaty in failing to recognise and provide for the customary rights and Treaty interests of CNI Māori in the natural resources of the region. In the area of resource management, the Tribunal is of the opinion that what CNI Māori seek is the right to negotiate arrangements in accordance with the principle of partnership and the Treaty of Waitangi.

Part VI contains two appendices: a case study relating to early Native Land Court hearings about the Kaingaroa 1 block and a literature list.

He Maunga Rongo: The Report on Central North Island Claims, Stage 1 addresses over 120 Treaty claims raised by Māori from some 50 iwi and hapū living in a region that stretches from the Bay of Plenty coastline inland to just south of Lake Taupo and eastwards across the Kaingaroa Plains.

The claims were brought together in the largest inquiry that the Tribunal has ever held. In hearings held over 10 weeks between 1 February and 9 November 2005, some 300 witnesses provided evidential briefs – including over 270 from Māori themselves – and the Tribunal considered over 100 written research reports.

The Tribunal panel consisted of Judge Caren Fox (presiding), John Baird, Gloria Herbert, and Dr Ann Parsonson. However, Mr Baird, as a director of Mighty River Power, was excluded from discussions, report writing, and any findings and recommendations concerning rivers, waters, lakes (including Lake Taupo), geothermal resources or assets, and any other part of the CNI inquiry in which Mighty River Power may have an interest.

A two-stage approach was adopted for the inquiry, with stage 1 focusing on generic or big picture issues which concern iwi and hapū across the region. (Stage 2, if needed, will look into the details of specific claims.) Stage 1 was divided into modules, to enable claimants to ‘opt out’ at certain points and switch to an early direct negotiation track if they wished. Some did so, taking advantage of the research that had been completed during the first module. The majority, however, stayed with the Tribunal process through to the end of hearings and then requested that the Tribunal continue to the next module and produce a report. This report comprises some 2000 pages and is broken into six parts.

Part I explains the inquiry process and introduces the iwi and hapu of the central North Island (CNI) inquiry region. It describes their traditions about their origins and the complexity of their kin interrelationships. It discusses traditional knowledge and customary law, explaining how the latter was based on values rather than rules.

Part II considers the political relationship between CNI Māori and the Crown from the time of the Treaty to around 1920. In the Tribunal’s finding, the Treaty guaranteed and protected the full authority (tino rangatiratanga) of Māori over their lands, people, treasures, and affairs – such authority being inherent to Māori polities, not created by the Treaty. The Tribunal also found that indigenous ‘sovereignty’ was not about independence from the state but rather about the proper exercise of Crown and Māori autonomy in their respective spheres and about managing the overlaps in partnership.

The Tribunal concluded that Crown’s guarantee to Māori of the same rights as other British subjects included the right to self-government through representative institutions. The report considers a number of ways in which the Crown could have met its obligations in this respect, but failed to do so. Indeed, the Tribunal concluded that given the sheer breadth and number of lost opportunities between 1840 and 1920 – many not so much being lost as sidelined or actively rejected – the historical evidence was overwhelmingly that the Crown committed a sustained breach of the Treaty in this regard.

Part III looks at the administration and alienation of Maori land in the region, and the lasting difficulties faced by Māori owners as a result of the title system introduced by the Crown. It discusses how, with the transformation of customary rights into individualised shares in newly created land blocks, many owners came to hold interests scattered between different places. Then, as the Māori land base shrank, and the land court rule of equal succession to owners’ interests took effect, inherited shares became smaller and smaller. Other chapters in this part discuss Crown provisions for the purchase and lease of land, and the way these were implemented in the Taupo, Kaingaroa, and Rotorua districts in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In the Tribunal’s finding, the key Treaty breach in respect of all these issues was the Crown’s failure, over more than a century, to facilitate legal community titles to land, which would have enabled hapu to make community decisions about land management, development, sale and lease. The Tribunal did find, however, that the breach has been mitigated by the provisions of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 – legislation which has given Māori landowners a greater range of options.

Lastly in this section of the report, the Tribunal looks at public works issues. Here, on the evidence available to it, the Tribunal concluded that Māori land was often not taken as a last resort, and/or only in exceptional circumstances in the national interest. Rather, because of the lesser requirements for notification, consultation and opportunities to object, Māori land (when wanted for a public work) tended to be taken as a first or early resort. This was in breach of the Treaty.

Part IV considers economic development. The Tribunal found that Māori possessed a Treaty right to development. This right extended to the development of their property, including through the use of new technologies and/or for new purposes, and to having an equal opportunity to do so. It also included the ability to develop, or profit from, resources in which they have a proprietary interest under Māori custom, even where the nature of that property right was not necessarily recognised under British law.

Ensuing chapters in part IV look at economic development in the areas of farming, tourism, forestry (both indigenous and exotic) and power generation. In many of these areas, the Tribunal found that the Crown had failed in its duty of active protection of Maori interests. As a result, it concluded, CNI Māori were often marginalised from economic development, especially up until the mid-twentieth century. The Tribunal did consider that the Crown may have done somewhat better in its Treaty obligations over Māori economic development in the exotic forestry sector, and did not find Treaty breach in that instance – although noted that its finding was preliminary as the evidence had not gone into detail. It also noted that CNI Māori economic development in that sector had come at a high price in terms of their cultural, environmental, and social interests.

Part V assesses Crown policies for natural resources and the environment. It looks at how CNI Māori have conceptualised, claimed and utilised the resources of the region, and concludes that two world views and two systems of law and authority have clashed. That discussion is carried through into chapters that focus on Lake Taupo; on other water resources of the region such as springs, smaller lakes, rivers, and estuaries; and on the geothermal resource.

The Tribunal found that Māori customary rights to indigenous freshwater and sea fisheries remained legally enforceable so long as there was compliance with the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. It also found that in legal and Treaty terms, CNI Māori had retained their customary rights to the geothermal fields of the cntral North Island and to the underlying the Taupo volcanic zone.

In general, the Tribunal found that the Crown had breached the Treaty in failing to recognise and provide for the customary rights and Treaty interests of CNI Māori in the natural resources of the region. In the area of resource management, the Tribunal is of the opinion that what CNI Māori seek is the right to negotiate arrangements in accordance with the principle of partnership and the Treaty of Waitangi.

Part VI contains two appendices: a case study relating to early Native Land Court hearings about the Kaingaroa 1 block and a literature list.